HRI Columnists

HRI Selections

HRI Featured Bloggers

Indulto

"Players Up" blogger Indulto is a retired computer programming residing in SoCal and has been betting Thoroughbreds since the days of Kelso, cashing his first ticket at Saratoga while in college.

Indulto is well known in racing's cyber world as a participant on the Ragozin Sheets message board, the PaceAdvantage Forum, Paulick Report, and has made important contributions to the industry's audience as an HRI Readers Blog contributor.

Indulto was active in the formation of the Horseplayers Association of North America and with former HANA colleagues worked on the Players' Boycott of California racing when takeout rates were increased by the legislature there.

Taking his nickname from the King Ranch color-bearer of the 1960s, Indulto now devotes his time to advocate for the recreational player and hobbyist, but prefers lower takeout rates for all rather than subsidized rebates for the few.

Indulto supports the creation of a centralized racing authority to establish uniform rules for racing and wagering and for those standards to be enforced consistently.

Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Sunday, August 10, 2014

LOS ANGELES, CA August 9, 2014--In the aftermath of the State-mandated installation of synthetic surfaces at major California venues, it was posited that more soft-tissue injuries were occurring on these new surfaces.

One way to validate that theory would be to determine the average number of days prior to a horse's next start after a race on each particular surface. If I had had access to a race-results data base, I could have done the research myself.

The best I could do, however, was request that information from a variety of on-line racing forums, but I never did get a response nor did I find any related content via Google.

I guess I'll never know, now that Keeneland, Del Mar and Meydan have decided to give up on synthetic surfaces and, with Hollywood Park long gone, Santa Anita has and, soon, Keeneland, Del Mar and Meydan will racing on dirt once again.

Since the early 1970's, I've longed for affordable access to a data base of thoroughbred race results similar to that maintained by the Jockey Club.

By 2010, it appeared possible to build and maintain such a data base on one's personal computer, analyzing the next day's races via either a JCapper program or other proprietary third-party data for under $90 per month. I longed for that hope to become reality.

However, considering the cost per month to acquire archival data was about the same and, unless one had the time and skills to keep the hardware and software resources functioning and the data current, the cost of technical support could exceed that of the data itself.

And that doesn't take into account the learning curve required to master complicated application programs that would yield useful results. What to do?

My lack of technical proficiency, combined with start-up costs, still prevents me from realizing my objective. What I would love would be to have on-line access to a data base someone else has built and maintains.

Given that, I could run voluminous queries that have nothing to do with the handicapping process, making the fee for such a service reasonable. Wishful thinking would have the Jockey Club or the Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA) becoming such a resource.

Indeed, HANA provides a very significant data subset at no charge to the public; takeout rates for each parimutuel pool category for every North American racetrack. Player advocates at the HANA-supported playersboycott.org have accumulated individual pool and cumulative handle figures from each pool at racetracks that have come under scrutiny by the organization after the tracks raised takeout.

It is in HANA's interest to provide this data as part of its mission to influence the industry while also trying to determine and implement optimal takeout rates. Common sense dictates that bettors increase their chances of profitability with lower takeout rates.

Some HANA board members have publicly acknowledged having access to the JCapper system. This reasonably assumes that there is a data base available to perform pari-mutuel pool research.

The most common utilization for Machine Readable Data (MRD) has been to: find relationships among the data that isolates potentially profitable pari-mutuel play; apply those relationships to races already run to test their potential profitability and further apply tested relationships to races yet-to-be run to further locate potentially positive outcomes.

Computer speed enables some players to handicap all races to be run on any given day and isolate races likely to produce profits in less time than it takes to peruse a Racing Form.

It makes sense that users of this data should be individually licensed to gain access to it. Indeed, a monthly fee to use the data is a reasonable expectation for those who would access it specifically for wagering purposes.

Computerized betting teams probably generate the most money from automated data usage but it is their ability to also access pool data in real-time prior to the running of a race that is the key to their success.

The next phase of money-generated computer processing of racing data appears to be in producing derivatives of raw data such as speed, pace, class and power ratings, then presenting it in a variety of formats for purchase by bettors.

It is worth noting that all those vendors agree that automation alone cannot guarantee the unique predictiveness they claim for their products.
The above, as well as MRD vendors such as Handicapper's Data Warehouse (HDW), purchase the raw data from Equibase which is owned by the Jockey Club.

Surely, Equibase/Jockey Club could offer individually-licensed, less-expensive access to a limited, short term on-line data base that does not threaten the success of existing partnerships with major past-performance and data providers.

I still handicap the "old-fashioned" way, i.e., eyeballing traditional PPs, generally focusing on top class races. It's a very enjoyable process but the preparation time seriously limits what I'm willing to watch and wager on.

By extending this "joy of handicapping" by isolating new relationships among data I deem relevant to me, not only would I become even more enthusiastic about racing but very likely bet more races and introduce potential new players to the process.

That’s the real point of all this.

If more and affordable data became available, the more people would access to it, the more likely they are to discover creative ways to use it, it follows that more new people could become involved in racing to play the races on-line--the 21st Century way.

When racetracks finally understand that their future depends as much on the on-line player as the live gate, they finally might find a way to fuel wagering by making new, cutting edge data available, whatever the cost.

Unless they don’t believe that the business they have chosen is worth an investment in their future that just might help them survive in the short term, too.

What’s that famous line from Jerry Maguire? No, not that one, the other one, the one that goes: “Help me… help you.”

Mr Ed: I’m not sure that I understood much of what you wrote above as you write, as Mr. Zast did, seemingly way above my head; like your concentrating on Saratoga racing while I am attentive to Philly/Delaware racing - a world of difference if you ask any turf writer (they are wrong, but that’s another story).

Like you, I handicap ‘the ol’ fashion way’. Just me and the past performances on paper right in front of me. I’m aware of what computers can produce: statistic after statistic, speed figures galore, pace figures galore, et cetera. Unfortunately, Thoroughbred racing’s product, the horse, is not like a human competing in a sport, as a horse race involves variables that cannot be programmed. In a sport’s event, if the same players faced each other every ten days, a computer program could easily print out that one team would win eight or nine times in ten games based on measurable data, if not all ten games. In a horse race, if the same ten entrants faced each other every ten days for ten races, the computer would probably short-circuit because it would be unable to digest the numerous variables.

The variables? Headache, tired, different jockey, lousy breakfast, to hot, to cold, don’t feel like running today, washed out, stumbled out of gate, banged at the start, bumped, carried wide, blocked, lugged in, crowded, in between, distance, weight, brushed, rushed early, lousy ride et cetera; these variables are why the average bettor wins about one-third of his win wagers, and a far less percentage with all other types of wagers.

The ten horse races, ten days apart, with the same entrants, would no doubt have six or seven different winners.

Attempting to sell productive computer generated data that will enhance bettors’ chances of cashing tickets is a gimmick like the tip sheets of yesteryear; if such a computer program existed that could select a high percentage of winners, do you think that the creator would simply offer it for sale or head for the track himself carrying a duffel bag for the loot.

WMC, can’t speak for Indulto but I’ve read enough of his material to know that the intellectual exercise has an intrinsic entertainment value of its own, like chess, or bridge and the like, which he enjoys.

What I took from this is that if his handicapping comes up with one particular horse in a particular race, he’d like to know what reasonable chance of success his horse would have. Marry that finding to the tote board to know whether a particular bet makes sense, win or lose.

I think you’ll agree that knowledge is power and that the game is hard enough without giving yourself a better chance to succeed.

Mr. Pricci: As I wrote above, I am not sure what Mr. Ed. was conveying. But, as you write, ‘marry that finding to the tote board ....’ seems to bypass computer analysis (rendering such basically irrelevant) as the tote board reflects precisely what bettors are saying with their dollars - never has there been a more accurate barometer ‘whether a particular bet makes sense, win or lose’.

Wilbur,
As I close in on a half-century of horseplaying, I find visually scanning the PPs for most races not only uninteresting, but unproductive.

Rather than look at a PP chart and ask myself, “What situations may be fertile ground for profit,” I’d like to press the ENTER key and find all situations at all active tracks that have proven profitable for me in the past.

As JP pointed out, there is entertainment to be had in determining the exact criteria for such situations and in optimizing them, but making money is the primary motivation for any activity related to this “greatest gambling game” of ours.

On the subject of handicapping, a shout out to Nick Kling for his picking Grand Arch in the Fourstardave. Didn’t win, but at 11-1 completed a nice $55 exacta with Seek Again (who he had third).

Independently, I was able to come up with both as well.
I wasn’t able to get my play in print and thus can’t count it here.
But,anyway, my play was 1 2/ 1 2 4 6 in both the exacta and tri.
Came close to a really nice tri, but my 30-1 shot, the 4, got beat for third.
Still a nice profit on the exacta.

As to the handicapping process, I rarely take more than two minutes to handicap a horse race; with so many variables that will surface during a horse race, to think or believe that a system fed with historical data could predict the outcome of a race consistently is pure folly. What so-called handicapping system works today will bankrupt you tomorrow. No matter how you slice it or dice it, you are going to cash win bet tickets about one-third of the time, and exacta, trifectas, and other exotic bets on a sliding scale from 20% to zero.

BTW, how many of you readers out there have cashed a pick five ticket, with the new, lower takeout rate, which apparently makes the pick five easier to win (harrumph).

#6: Yes, you can make money on stake races. You can also make money on the last race at Penn National at 11:00 at night.

Wilbur: You want answers?
Mr. Ed: I think I’m entitled to them.
Wilbur: You want answers?
Mr. Ed: I want the truth!
Wilbur: You can’t handle the truth! Son, horse racing is not a sport!
Mr Ed: But the entries and results are in the sports section of the newspaper. Besides, horses and jockeys are athletes.
Wilbur: You are no athlete, you can’t read or handicap for that matter! When was the last time you cashed the new low takeout pick 5?
Mr. Ed: Takeout is very important, it helps to keep you liquid. Did you know that Philly Park is rated 56 out of 66 by HANA?
Wilbur: You’re full of liquid alright. Takeout only matters when you win, right Alice? or Hannah?
Mr Ed: Did you know that I developed a handicapping system for racing on synthetics?
Wilbur: There’s swamp land in Jersey real cheap too! Sell it to the Algorithm guy!
Mr. Ed: Stake races are more exciting than claiming races and easier to handicap, right Sam? or Ralphie?
Wilbur: The human eye can not tell the difference. Neither could the horse’s eye. Take off the blinkers! Bang Zoom!
Mr. Ed: Did you hear that players are boycotting the beloved Twin Spires racetrack because of raised takeout?
Wilbur: I told you already. Takeout only matters IF, IF, IF you cash! Besides, too many horses in the darn turf writer over hyped Derby anyway!
Mr. Ed: I love the intellectual exercise of handicapping.
Wilbur: It takes ten seconds to pick a winner. I love to CASH! PERIOD!
Mr. Ed: Why do horseplayers only tell you when they win? Like it’s some kind of ego trip?
Wilbur: Yeah, my OTB sharpies never show losing tickets, but they whine like school children about dirty noses!
Mr. Ed: Did you ever see Big Red?
Wilbur: (quietly) I spent my Saturdays at the Great Barrington Fair. You know, the cheap New England circuit.
Mr Ed: You never saw Big Red???
Wilbur: What is this? Some kind of Code Red? You love horse racing more than you love yourself?
Mr Ed: You love gambling more than you love yourself?
Wilbur: You can’t handle the truth!

Mr. Ed: Your satire above is indeed hilarious. I can’t find one comment by Wilbur that is not, in fact, the truth and an accurate summation of his comments here at HRI over the past six or seven years except for the references to Big Red.

Wilbur spent many, many Saturdays and Sundays at Green Mountain, not Great Barrington. And, I was at Belmont when Big Red won by, what, thirty-three lengths.

#8: My apologies. I, perhaps from to many Foster’s, gave Mr. Ed the credit for your amusing satire.

You know what makes me feel good? When other people repeat truthful commentary by me in a disparaging way.

* Prior commenting issues should now be resolved

Name:

Email:

Location:

Notify me of follow-up comments?

*** HorseRaceInsider will delete any comment that engages in personal attacks directed at anyone, uses foul language, or one made by an imposter using another’s name to express an opinion or comment.

HRI will not, however, edit or discourage those who, with intellectual honesty, disagree with HRI staffers or other readers. We also will not, as is done on some racing sites, edit disagreeable or negative commentary in the interests of commerce.